What is the opposite of a Minotaur?

N

NiceOrc

New member
Hi. I'm reading LWW to my kids (so they can know the "proper" story, not just the movie version!) and something I noticed has been bothering me. I hope someone can help.

When the White Witch is meeting with Aslan (to arrange his sacrifice for Edmund), there is a character who is described as "the Bull with the man's head". (p131 in my 1972 edition.)

My question is: what do you call this creature? He seems to be the opposite of a Minotaur - in body and philosophy. Minotaurs are mentioned as being on the WW's side.

Any ideas?

Do you think there's a bad opposite to the Centaurs? A man with a horse's head? Maybe that's where the idea of Bottom in Shakespeare's A midsummer night's dream came from - a negative opposite to noble Centaurs? Sorry, I think I'm rambling now!
 
I noticed that as well - he's the character who challenges the Witch to take Edmund by force.

I don't think the story supports a full-blown "opposites" paradigm, especially when considering physical makeup. I think it just coincidence that the "counter-minotaur" (as it were) was in Aslan's camp; I don't think much could be made of the fact that he has a man's head and a beast's body as opposed to beings with a man's body and a beast's head. All the beings in Narnia had free will and could choose their side - though it does seem that Lewis had prejudices (for instance, bulls never make out very well - a bull joins the Calormene side in Battle). And it's little use looking to classical mythology - there, just about every creature that's part man/part something else is seen as suspect.
 
I'd also be interested to know what Lewis based this creature on, if anything. There is a Babylonian demon called a lamassu, or 'bull-man', which could perhaps fit with Lewis' interest in Persia (as shown by the Calormenes). However, a lamassu also has the wings of an eagle, though it could still have been a source of inspiration:

khorsabad_lamasu_s.JPG


Personally I would follow the view that Lewis, at least in this first volume (in terms of writing order), was not intentionally providing an allegorical purpose for every character he included. If he was, it would be possible to argue that perhaps the bull with a man's head, who speaks in "a great bellowing voice" (p129), represents rash, violent responses. As in, 'bullish' behaviour, the forceful, powerful animal given a man's head and ability to speak.

However, I think that would be reading far too much into one of the parts which I think is simply fantastical narrative on Lewis' part. The animated film pushes this idea further; amongst the statues in the Witch's castle are also a flying tiger, a tiger with a unicorn's horn, and a man with the head of an eagle. This trend is continued later on, as towards the end of the film, an extremely weird scene I've mentioned elsewhere on the forum occurs. At the opening of the battle sequence, to the far left of the view, a giant yellow duck, gripping a weapon in its wing, fights with a grim-faced tree. Once I get the DVD, I'll have to do a screen-capture, as that is a picture which definitely needs to be preserved for posterity. :p
 
The mythical Minotaur was a monster with a man's body and a bull's head in the center of the Labyrinth of King Minos, so it was "Minos' Bull" or, in the Greek portmanteau (two words squished into one) "Minotaur". So the name was not a species as much as a proper name for that one monster.

That would make the beastie whatever C.S. Lewis did...or didn't...call it in the book. Be creative. Refer to him as a Man Bull, or whatever strikes your fancy.
 
slideyfoot said:
At the opening of the battle sequence, to the far left of the view, a giant yellow duck, gripping a weapon in its wing, fights with a grim-faced tree. Once I get the DVD, I'll have to do a screen-capture, as that is a picture which definitely needs to be preserved for posterity. :p
Click to expand...

I'd love to see that too!

Something else which occurs to me is that the filmmakers don't seem to have picked up on Aslan making the talking creatures bigger (or smaller eg elephants). I suppose it's easier when making a film to have no physical difference between a horse and a talking horse. A little disappointing, as it was one thing the BBC series did actually get right. (Even if it was just so they could fit actors inside beaver costumes!)
 
Yes, but I can live with it - those costumes were truly terrible, and made the beavers human-sized rather than just slightly bigger. Also, though its a minor point in view of the whole series (as the size thing is frequently mentioned in the books Lewis wrote later), I don't remember The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe specifically mentioning the beaver's size (though I might have just missed it). Pauline Baynes' pictures corroborate that - for example, take a look at p78 where the children are depicted calling out for Edmund. The beavers are quite clearly normal beaver-size.
 
Back
Top